Talk:Societal collapse

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] A dissenting voice

I really don't[[ see much in common from all these examples. The Norse in Greenland were driven out by the Little Ice Age in Europe. Nobody knows why the Olmec civilization ended - or maybe it just became the Maya. The "Izapa" are not a society -- it is an archaelogical site. No one knows why Cahokia was abandoned.

Did every civilization end in a "societal collapse"? Is every abandoned town the result of a "societal collapse"? ]] The definition is so lacking in detail ("a breakdown in society") as to be meaningless, IMHO. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Madman2001 (talk • contribs)

I didn't write or really contribute to the article (yet) but im currently reading Collapse (book) by Jared Diamond and why societies collapse is a complex question. This article currently appears to be just a list of societies that are thought to have collapsed, being the common element. -- Stbalbach 05:05, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Hey, MilitaryTarget, you really put some rigor into this article. Keep up the good work. Madman 03:23, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Modern examples?

Rwandan genocide? Soviet Union? Somalia?

A textbook example is underway in East Timor right now. --Dave 07:33, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Disintegration/collapse merge

Against: Isn't it possible for disintegration to be occuring before and regardless of a possible collapse, for example a few centuries ago in London, before actions were taken to fix the sewerage, water supply and disease problems. It is possible a collapse may occur without a disintegration precursor, for example because of a volcanic eruption, tidal wave or other large natural disaster. Because of this distinction, I don't believe Social disintegration and Societal collapse should be merged. - Shiftchange 07:31, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Against. Social disintegration is a term used in Sociology with specific meaning and history. Societal collapse is a popular phrase with broad meanings, depending on who uses it, when they used it, and in what context they used it. -- Stbalbach 13:40, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Against: Stbalbach is right. Social disintegration is a sociological concept, implying the collapse of social links and bonds, which is quite different that the collapse of a society. A society's collapse may indeed involve social disintegration in the sociological sense, but such a collapse may be equally caused by events such as war or natural disaster. In contrast, social disintegration is less an event, and more of a process. See individualization.

[edit] PLEASE Update this page and harness many more to contribute

I am very impressed by this page, and by its relevance to our time of troubles today. I urge those who have knowledge and time to contribute, to consider ramping up this page in the next year, as I believe it is quite helpful. A couple of months ago I had occasion to ask Alvin Toffler what his greatest concern was, and he said "the collapse of all our institutions." It is now clearly established that the extremists Republicans (I am an estranged moderate Republican) have taken over and are disrespectful of all of us who believe in creativity (e.g. science as well as humanities), moderation, sharing, and cross-cultural collabiration and understanding. I consider this page to be one of the most important Wikipedia pages available to the general population. I plan to point to it from www.oss.net. Anyone who contributes to this page is doing something for humanity at large and the US population in particular. fkjgskfjgsk With respect, ~~


[edit] Citations

There needs to be more citations for where this information came from

[edit] Discussion on end of civilization

Editors input would be appreciated at Talk:End_of_civilization. There seems to be some disagreement what the end of civilization actually means. nirvana2013 17:41, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] proposed merge of fall of a civilisation with societal collapse

  • oppose. these are really different topics. Fall of a civilisation is centered on Gibbon's concepts of the inevitability of "a fall" and the rotation of world power. societal collapse need not be connected to industrialisation or globalization arguments, and in fact many societal collapses are purely regional (eg Mayan) and have nothing to do with rotation of world power. in any case the two articles should be allowed to develope for now and see where they go. Anlace 16:37, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Manifestations of societal collapse

Clearly dysgenics is a mode of societal collapse, otherwise that page wont exist.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Paruta (talk • contribs)

We don't use ourself as a reference. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 15:19, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Catabolic collapse

I know a Wikipedia talk page isn't the right place to critique a person's work, but in the section on catabolic collapse, it is said that industrial society is likely to grow through a series of crises on it's way to decline and fall. Widespread industrialization may certainly be curtailed in the future, but saying all of it will collapse is like predicting the collapse of agricultural civilization (which does not depend on steel and oil based industries, although it's benefits immensely). Even if America, Europe, Asia, and Africa annihilate the industry out of each other, I'll bet there'd still be pockets of organization who'd be willing to enslave a local population and force them to industrialize, and so continuing the cycle between dark ages and light ages, with kingdoms becoming empires and vice versa. Xaxafrad 22:29, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Xaxafrad, you need to read Derrick Jenzen's "Endgame". Civilisations, from Latin "Civilis" = a town dweller, are always dependent upon a hinterland, as cities are defined as dense population centres where the bulk of the population is not engaged in food production. Historically they proceed by depleting the stock of non renewable resources in the vacinity, and frequently also deplete renewable resources at a greater rate than their recovery rate (Plato speaks of this in his Timaeus, describing how the felling of trees in Attica led to the loss of soils and the impoverishment of the countryside for anything except the growing of olives). For this reason civilisations are compelled to be expansive, and we find since the first civilisations in the Middle East, in southern Iraq, Egypt and the Indus, these are epicentres for the spreading deserts which characterise these regions today. It also explains why the Western Civilisation (the only planetary civilisation to ever exist), is bigger than Islamic civilisation, which is bigger than Roman civilisation, which in turn was bigger than the Greek civilisation, bigger than Mycenaean, which in turn was bigger than Minoan. Civilisations have generally eiyther come to be incorporated into one of the larger ones, or else have collapsed through a dark age. The collapse usually occurs when for some reason or another they come to deplete and destroy the environment on which they depend, resources become scarce, timber demands need to deforestation, soils erode, warfare breaks out between competing elites, and they either get incorporated into a larger temporarily more successful culture or else they collapse when centralisation disappears.
Our civilisation is not exempt from this cycle, except in our case we are destroying the atmosphere of a planet, and depleting all easily accessible resources of available non-renewable resources. Our collapse will be longer, and darker than all that came previously, because with the collapse of globalised culture there is no new civilisation awaiting in the wings to help us this time. New stone age, here we come. John D. Croft 09:30, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
The Egyptians lived in a relative balance with nature for a few centuries. Let's posit that they could've lived in an isolated world, without so-called barbarian raids or competitive civilizations. How long would such a situation last? Breeding must be controlled, or else more homes will be built, cities will enlarge, one, two, or a handful of families will strike out for the wilderness and found a new city of their own. Environmental isolation (ocean, desert, mountain) is necessary to prevent the founding of colonies. The environment is far from stable, as oceans and mountains rise and fall, and deserts come and go. The nature of DNA is to spread, but I won't announce the primacy of the fitfulness of human genes until they've decisively overcome their planetary origins and limitations.
The only thing that can save us from another stone age will be the electronic preservation of knowledge, which requires the preservation of access to such information. With such information, those who can read it will retain some measure of civilization (that is, social stratification, by whatever means necessary, as there has always been somebody willing to kill somebody else to get what they want (it's the one law of nature that needs to be replaced with a law of man)). Assuming a genetically viable breeding population is retained every generation, civilization will come back eventually (at least, over the next couple million years, until evolution or the genetic industry introduce an unpredictable paradigm).
We are simultaneously approaching the limits of foreseeable environmental and technological exploitation at the speed of an iron horse. The human mind's ability to adapt to a variety of situations has enabled us to put enough band-aids on our society that it would be indistinguishable from a stereotypical mummy (which can lead us to a whole different metaphor...). Something's gotta give, but nobody knows what will give first, or if we can invent yet another band-aid before it gives. (this is a fun conversation, but I'm afraid it's not on-topic with the article, but I won't tell if you won't ;) although if anybody wants to shout WP:OR I'll stop typing right now) Xaxafrad 22:20, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] A certain POV

The following recent edit has been removed and placed here for discussion. WBardwin 03:02, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Some including Nobel Prize winner William Shockley have suggested that the average individual in a civilization may eventually become weaker through the process of dysgenics. This process occurs because the most intelligent actually reproduce least leaving the population less able to perform complex functions. This effect is presently being observed in almost every country on earth, and has been named the Demographic-economic paradox. The inherent differences between races, with the high population growth of blacks and high rates of intermarriage between blacks and other races is likely to cause another global societal collapse.
It's well sourced and should be included. AuNO305:32, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
This is an ancient racist view, expressing a concern that in fact extends back to Roman times, with the fears that the Roman Senatorial class was not reproducing itself. Pro-natalist policies were instituted, but over time it is no problem. Despite rascist claims to the contrary, there is no evidence that blacks are intellectually inferior to whites. The collapse in such cases only occurs when the elite form a closed caste and prevent upward mobility of other groups. Blacks and Hispanics in the US are only an issue if whites close ranks and prevent others moving into their circles. John D. Croft 04:06, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
That's your view. I think something as well sourced as that paragraph should definitely be included. AuNO321:46, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
If it were to be included, I would only agree if the countervailing point of view I have shown here were also included, in the name of balance. John D. Croft 04:42, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
The user who wrote the paragraph made a racist comment on the Kevin Strom page stating he wanted to kill off all black people. It should not be here. AuNo3 should also be banned as he was warned many times but blanked his talk page to appear as if he was not warned.YVNP 01:25, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
Personal attacks are not tolerated on Wikipedia. I have never cleared my talk page, as my edits will confirm. Learn to use the website and know its rules before you make any more statements. Gold Nitrate
You blanked your page here, here, and most recently here. As for the racist comment, YVNP is referring to this edit by 128.32.77.32, who was first to add the bullet point. It should be mentioned that some of this IP's edits are eerily similar to yours, for example in your style of vandalizing the Heidi Klum article ([1], [2]).
As for the Shockley statement, if it needs to be included then it should be properly attributed to the original source. This does seem like an antiquated viewpoint, so it's probably best to include some sort of rebuttal in the bullet point. - 71.179.102.236 05:43, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
I have the right to clear my talk page, and did it after you posted your comments and not because of them. You need to learn to use this website.
You can clear your talk page as I am now aware. apologies. I didn't attack you because you have been warned enough to be banned. IYVNP 20:22, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
actually you can change only when prove you have read the warnings and will try to learn from them. Since you deleted them but denied doing it, I am wondering if you learned anything from themYVNP 05:16, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
I have attempted to put some balance in the so-called race-and-intelligence piece by presenting a contrary point of view. Some say that the results of the Flynn Effect are due to the improvement in the environment - particularly for the disadvantaged groups who earlier tested poorly. This effect shows that the so-called gaps between so-called "races" in fact are a measure of cultural disadvantage. Overcome the cultural disadvantage and the intelligence of the whole population improves. John D. Croft 12:30, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Two paragraphs were repeated twice, and the whole argument here deserves to be footnoted, rather than put into the text as it was. The reference to the Wikipedia article Race and Intelligence was deleted as the article is currently locked due to irreconcilable disputes over the racial basis of intelligence scores. I have attempted to give greater balance between the dysgenic and the alternative view, and make it less an apologetics for the eugenic argument. Even still the first part of the argument belongs in an article on Dysgenics rather than Societal Collapse. John D. Croft 03:52, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

The fact that "Julian Huxley (the first director of UNESCO) was concerned by dysgenics and described eugenics as of "of all outlets for altruism, that which is most comprehensive, and of longest range" is irrelevant to the article. It has a place on the dysgenics page, not here. It is a fact that eugenic theories did fall into disrepute because of their association with Nazi practices. See the article on Eugenics. The points made and the references cited are well covered in the dysgenics article and do not need to be repeated here. Please sign your name if you are going to edit. John D. Croft 08:44, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
John Croft, your edit brings your own sway to the article. You mention that dysgenic effects is due to the environment which is a broad statement with no source and is far more POV than anything in the original statement. Gold Nitrate 15:40, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
I have included sources and have included the edits I have made to show that there is a range of arguments about the so-called dysgenic effects, and attempted to give some balance here. You keep excluding the balance which shows that the points about dysgenic effects are controversial and disputed (which they are). The points about Dysgenics are still included in the footnotes. To include them in the text of the article, without balance of the opposite points of view is a POV error and I will continue to change as shown here. Continued deletion of this is to weaken the article altogether, and to make it a POV error that includes no alternative, or shows that these arguments are controversial and not universally accepted. John D. Croft 08:31, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
Everyone has agreed? Not me! WBardwin 01:23, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

The only agreement I see (for inclusion) is by User:Auno3 a.k.a. Gold Nitrate. A user currently blocked for a second 3rr violation. Vsmith 01:44, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

I smell a puppet --Michael Johnson 01:56, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

The same material is being added again.[3] There's no consensus to include it. The newest material doens't give a source for the connection to the topic of the article. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 07:49, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Confusing Categorization of Collapsed Societies

The list of societies that have collapsed "by the first method" and "by the second method" is confusing. Several methods are listed above, but I'm not sure what applies where. Perhaps these should be relabeled in a clearer way? 68.148.38.255 (talk) 00:44, 6 April 2008 (UTC)